tigertim68
Well-known member
- Sep 3, 2012
- 2,320
Nothing worse than wealthy socialist , like all the leaders of the Labour Party
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Politics] *** Labour Party Annual Conference, 23-25 September 2018, ACC Liverpool ***
- Thread starter Moshe Gariani
- Start date
Thunder Bolt
Silly old bat
The BBC is filled up with Tories put here by Cameron. It's nothing more than a propaganda machine now.
Baker lite
Banned
Still CANNOT believe folk could vote for a pair of terrorist loving, Jew hating, racist scum bags like Corbyn and McDonnell.
I suppose it takes all sorts.
I suppose it takes all sorts.
The rise in reliance on food banks is as much to do with the rise in the number of banks that have opened, a figure the Trussell Trust don’t seem keen on sharing!
BBC report in the 2015/16 FY There were more than a million emergency food packages handed out. However, as we've pointed out before , this doesn't mean a million people accessed a food bank.
Secondly you’re point of more people from a supposed working class background will have access to third tier education, surely this will only increase the number of 20 somethings with a useless degree chasing very few jobs in their alleged area of expertise?
exKT17
Well-known member
You are so wrong!
the right footed denilson
New member
As opposed to an entire party of arms selling, bomb dropping, child molesting, anybodybutus hating scum bags like the Tories?
LamieRobertson
Not awoke
exKT17
Well-known member
I think you will find that John Lewis give a profit related bonus - very different from share ownership.
LamieRobertson
Not awoke
LamieRobertson
Not awoke
I think you’ll find the Labour Party dropped ( as you so eloquently put it) more bombs in 2001-2010 than the the current administration.
And the one before that[emoji23]
studio150
Well-known member
Not sure what you are suggesting is correct. I thought it was giving 10% of the already issued shares to the employees and these being held by the employees as a group, with the individual employees then receiving up to £500 per year in dividends, with any excess over £500 effectively going to central funds.
I agree with your comment thats its about taking capital, as it is effectively theft, and may well lead to less investment, companies delisting from the stock exchange, or moving head offices overseas so that they are exempt from the scheme.
Hopefully further detail will follow on these Labour proposals to clarify
I don't follow the distinction you are trying to make? Why do you think there ARE more banks?
Firstly, there's plenty of evidence to support the view that high take-up of third-level of education is overwhelmingly a good thing for a nation's economy.
More specifically, who said anything about 'useless' degrees? Whilst I'm not arrogant enough to offer myself as the arbiter of which degrees are 'useful' and which are not, there are clearly some which fall fairly and squarely into the former category.
Personally I'd propose a system, where courses that are demonstrably in the public interest (teaching, nursing, paramedics, etc) are fully funded, with a contract element that commits the recipient of the 'free' course, to working within the public sector for a set period afterwards. Have your free nursing degree, then commit to six (or whatever works) years within the NHS, before taking that lucrative job in Dubai, etc.
That people have to pay £9,000 per year to train to work in the NHS as a nurse, is a national scandal. It's no wonder we are utterly reliant on the immoral practice of importing staff that other less well-off nations have invested in training, to keep the system running.
Dianne Abbot will be making a statement shortly.
the right footed denilson
New member
I've not said the Labour party are any better, have I?
- Aug 7, 2003
- 7,786
I guess that, in practice, you are right, but his message was interpreted differently by many, some of whom still believe it to be policy. Its the art of soundbytes, I suppose.
jakarta
Well-known member
Dorset Seagull
Once Dolphin, Now Seagull
Seems a reasonable idea. That alone means than none of the current crop of politicians are likely to think its worthwhile
KZNSeagull
Well-known member
My understanding is the same as yours. This is from his speech:
"We will legislate for large companies to transfer shares into an “Inclusive Ownership Fund.” The shares will be held and managed collectively by the workers. The shareholding will give workers the same rights as other shareholders to have a say over the direction of their company. And dividend payments will be made directly to the workers from the fund. Payments could be up to £500 a year. That’s 11 million workers each with a greater say, and a greater stake, in the rewards of their labour.
Societal Dividend
But we all know it’s not just the employees of a company that create the profits it generates. It’s the collective investment in infrastructure, education and research and development that we as a society make that enables entrepreneurs to build and grow their businesses.
So we believe it’s right that society shares in the benefits that investment produces. That’s why a proportion of revenues generated by the ‘inclusive ownership funds’ will be transferred back to our public services as a social dividend. Over time, this will mobilise billions that could be spent supporting our public services and social security system."
Some "large" companies do not pay dividends to shareholders. Will they now be compelled to? What if declaring a dividend will put that business at risk? I really cannot see how this will work at all, let alone raise billions for public services.